MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1960203543 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000974

Vaccines for preventing cholera

2001· review· en· W1960203543 on OpenAlexaff
Patricia M. Graves, Jonathan J Deeks, Vittorio Demicheli, Mark Pratt, Tom Jefferson

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsCochrane
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCholera vaccineCholeraPlaceboConfidence intervalRelative riskMeta-analysisVaccinationRandomized controlled trialVaccine efficacyClinical trialPediatricsImmunologyInternal medicineVirologyAlternative medicineVibrio cholerae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Oral cholera vaccines (either killed whole cell or live recombinant vaccines) are newer alternatives to the parenteral vaccines which have been thought to confer only moderate and short-term immunity. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effect of cholera vaccines in preventing cases of cholera and preventing deaths. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group trials register, Medline, Embase and reference lists of articles. We handsearched the journal Vaccine, contacted researchers in the field and manufacturers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised studies comparing cholera vaccines (killed or live) with placebo, control vaccines or no intervention, or comparing types, doses or schedules of cholera vaccine. We included adults and children irrespective of immune status or special risk category. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data extraction and assessment of trial quality was done independently by two reviewers. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-two trials were included. Seventeen efficacy trials of relatively good quality, testing parenteral and oral killed whole cell vaccines and involving over 2. 6 million adults, children and infants were included. Nineteen safety trials have been conducted for both types of killed whole cell vaccines and for live vaccines and have involved 11,459 people. For all types of vaccines compared to placebo, the relative risk of contracting cholera at 12 months was 0.49, 95% confidence interval 0. 41 to 0.59 (random effects model). This translates to an efficacy of 51%, 95% confidence interval 41% to 59%. Both parenteral and oral administration were relatively efficacious, but significant protection extended into the third year for oral killed whole cell vaccines. Children under 5 were only protected for up to a year, while older children or adults were protected for up to three years. Parenteral killed whole cell vaccines were associated with increased systemic and local adverse effects compared to placebo. Oral killed whole cell vaccines or oral live vaccines were not. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Cholera killed whole cell vaccines appear to be relatively effective and safe. Live oral recombinant vaccines appear to be safe, but efficacy data are not available. Protection against cholera appears to persist for up to two years following a single dose of vaccine, and for three to four years with an annual booster.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.007

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.201
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207